See the published version of this preprint at BMC Psychiatry.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: The jumping to conclusions bias (JTC) is considered to be an important causal factor in theoretical models for the formation and maintenance of delusions. However, recent meta-analytic findings show a rather equivocal pattern of results regarding associations between JTC and delusions. Thus, the present study aims to investigate in a large sample whether the JTC-bias is more pronounced in patients with psychotic disorders in comparison to controls and whether the JTC bias is associated with a more severe delusional conviction, persecutory delusions, and positive symptoms in general.
Methods: Patients with psychotic disorders (n = 300) enrolled in a therapy trial and healthy controls (n = 51) conducted a variant of the beads task (fish task) as a measure for the JTC-bias at the start of the trial. Further, clinical interviews were used to assess patients’ delusional severity and delusional conviction.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between patients with psychotic disorders (with 53% displaying the JTC-bias) and controls (41%). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant correlations between JTC measures and persecutory delusions, delusional conviction, and positive symptoms.
Conclusions: We found no differences in JTC between patients with psychotic disorders and healthy controls, which is in part in line with meta-analytic findings using a wide range of JTC task variants. Interestingly, patients with psychotic disorders displayed JTC rates commonly found in the literature, while healthy control subjects showed an unexpectedly high level of JTC. The task variant we used in the present study (fish task) is discussed as a potential reason for our results, as it may induce a more deliberative reasoning style in controls as compared to the traditional beads task. Furthermore, possible implications for the measurement of the JTC-bias, in general, are discussed.
Trial Registration: ISRCTN29242879 (isrctn.com), date of registration: April 12th 2006, retrospectively registered
Keywords
Schizophrenia, psychosis, delusions, jumping to conclusions, cognitive bias, delusional conviction
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Psychiatry.
Version 4
Posted 03 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 21 Nov, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 15 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 01 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 28 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 05 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 04 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 04 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 30 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 11 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 29 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 22 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Mar, 2020
First submitted
On 17 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Psychiatry
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Psychiatry.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Psychiatry.
Version 4
Posted 03 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 21 Nov, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 15 Nov, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 01 Nov, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Nov, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 28 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 05 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 04 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 04 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 30 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 11 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 29 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 22 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 19 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 23 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 20 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 20 Mar, 2020
First submitted
On 17 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Psychiatry
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Psychiatry.
Background: The jumping to conclusions bias (JTC) is considered to be an important causal factor in theoretical models for the formation and maintenance of delusions. However, recent meta-analytic findings show a rather equivocal pattern of results regarding associations between JTC and delusions. Thus, the present study aims to investigate in a large sample whether the JTC-bias is more pronounced in patients with psychotic disorders in comparison to controls and whether the JTC bias is associated with a more severe delusional conviction, persecutory delusions, and positive symptoms in general.
Methods: Patients with psychotic disorders (n = 300) enrolled in a therapy trial and healthy controls (n = 51) conducted a variant of the beads task (fish task) as a measure for the JTC-bias at the start of the trial. Further, clinical interviews were used to assess patients’ delusional severity and delusional conviction.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between patients with psychotic disorders (with 53% displaying the JTC-bias) and controls (41%). Furthermore, there were no statistically significant correlations between JTC measures and persecutory delusions, delusional conviction, and positive symptoms.
Conclusions: We found no differences in JTC between patients with psychotic disorders and healthy controls, which is in part in line with meta-analytic findings using a wide range of JTC task variants. Interestingly, patients with psychotic disorders displayed JTC rates commonly found in the literature, while healthy control subjects showed an unexpectedly high level of JTC. The task variant we used in the present study (fish task) is discussed as a potential reason for our results, as it may induce a more deliberative reasoning style in controls as compared to the traditional beads task. Furthermore, possible implications for the measurement of the JTC-bias, in general, are discussed.
Trial Registration: ISRCTN29242879 (isrctn.com), date of registration: April 12th 2006, retrospectively registered
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...